ArticlePolymers2022
Comparison of Microleakage in Nanocomposite and Amalgam as a Crown Foundation Material Luted with Different Luting Cements under CAD-CAM Milled Metal Crowns: An In Vitro Microscopic Study.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Trial to Assess Physiology and Activity of Masticatory Muscles of Complete Denture Wearer Following Vitamin D Intervention.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Retentive Forces and Deformation of Fitting Surface in RPD Clasp Made of Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK).Polymers · 2023Article
- Comparison between Restorative Materials for Pulpotomised Deciduous Molars: A Randomized Clinical Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of marginal leakage and retentive strength of implant-supported milled zirconia and cobalt-chromium copings cemented with different temporary cements.Dental research journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Microleakage is a persistent problem despite advancement in materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics. This leads to the importance of sound crown foundation material and luting agents used to maintain the marginal seal. The literature is deficient with studies, comparing microleakage under various crown foundation materials and luting agents, especially with CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) metal crowns. This study was aimed to compare microleakage in a nanocomposite/dentinal bonding agent and amalgam/cavity varnish as crown foundation materials luted with two different luting cements: resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and self-adhesive resin cement, under both dry and contaminated conditions. A hundred intact, caries-free human molars were prepared to receive crown foundation material and extra coronal restorations. Amalgams with cavity varnish and nanocomposites with dentinal bonding agent in both ideal and contaminated conditions were used as crown foundation materials. After restoration, each sample was cemented with a CAD-CAM milled metal crown using two different luting agents-resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and self-adhesive resin cements both in ideal and contaminated conditions. Cementation was followed by thermocycling of samples, immersion in erythrosine B dye, embedding in clear auto polymerizing acrylic resin and sectioning to evaluate microleakage using stereomicroscope. The mean microleakage between different luting cements on the experimental side of the facial surface was 137.64 μm and 211.01 μm for resin-reinforced GIC and for self-adhesive resin cement was 119.78 μm and 150.42 μm, under ideal and contaminated condition, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean micro-leakage between different crown foundation material and cement groups used in the study. The composites and amalgam, both when used as crown foundation material and luted with use of technically advanced CAD-CAM metal crown with self-adhesive resin cement (in both ideal or contaminated condition), showed less microleakage than in resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Overall, the self-adhesive resin cement showed comparatively reduced microleakage in all combinations with different crown foundations. Thus, this combination can be used in daily clinical practice to provide better protection from further decay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.